Mark Simmonds: The AIDS pandemic is causing devastation in developing nations and now not only in Africa. It is crippling economies, devastating key-worker sectors and threatening security and stability. This year alone, it is estimated that 4.9 million people contracted the virus and only 1 million are receiving treatment out of total infected global population of more than 40 million. It is disastrous that the three-by-five initiative appears to have failed and that the G8 aspirations for HIV/AIDS appear to be adrift. What is DFID's strategy to ensure that developing-nation Governments recognise and prioritise prevention and treatment and that the pharmaceutical industry allows the manufacture of cheaper, generic antiretroviral drugs?

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know of the concern about the fact that the Government are not allowing time for a debate on police restructuring. I wrote to the Home Secretary last week, because he had said outside the House that the House would have three opportunities to debate the matter before the Christmas recess. At business questions last week, the Deputy Leader of the House confirmed that there would be no such opportunity before Christmas. There appears to be an inconsistency.
	I wrote to the Home Secretary to inform his private office that I would raise a point of order last Friday. I have still not received a reply. Perhaps you will advise me, Mr. Speaker, on what steps I should take next.

William McCrea: I congratulate the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—who gave an insight into his local area and the wider scene as regards European affairs—for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) and for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), from whom we heard a few fishy stories.
	On behalf of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, I would like to share a few thoughts with Members, which I trust the Minister will take cognisance of as he prepares for the Fisheries Council. I also hope that he will encourage his colleague at the Northern Ireland Office, Lord Rooker, to attend with him to bat for Northern Ireland fishermen and to do his best to put forward the case for local fishermen in Europe.
	I also hope that, following my remarks, this House will better understand the problems that the industry is facing and the few opportunities that it has. Some of those problems are common to all regions within the United Kingdom. I understand the frustrations that the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby expressed. I can assure him that those frustrations are felt by Northern Ireland fishermen, especially as the Irish Republic Government seem to secure a more favourable outcome from the talks and negotiations in Europe than the UK Government do on behalf of fishermen in Northern Ireland. There are some issues that are unique to those who fish and depend upon fish in the Irish sea.
	Sea fishing is maintained all around Northern Ireland's coastline, but the main commercial activity is centred around three fishing villages, namely, Portavogie in the north, Ardglass in the middle and Kilkeel in the south of the County Down coast. The fishing industry is in reality the community in those villages, and the community is the fishing industry. The two are inextricably linked. Therefore, we can understand what a decline in that industry does to the community. Before I refer to some of the recommendations that those fishermen would like the Minister to take cognisance of, let me give hon. Members some background.
	Traditionally, the industry sustained itself and the fish stocks by being able to conduct what was known as a mixed fishery, targeting three main stock groups. For about a third of the year, the fleet would target herring; for another third of the year, it would target whitefish; and for the final third, it would target nephrops, or prawns. Then fisheries managers intervened. Back in 1980, temporary closed areas were introduced in the herring fishery. Twenty-five years later, those temporary closures are still with the industry. One might ask, what has resulted from those temporary closures? For the vast majority of fishermen, the herring fishery disappeared. The local fleet then had to divert its efforts to the remaining fisheries: whitefish and prawns.
	Then, at the beginning of the 1990s, the fisheries managers decided that too much effort was being exerted upon the whitefish stocks. Reduced TACs in the Irish sea were the order of the day, but those were compounded in 2000 by the first so-called cod recovery programme to be implemented in EU waters. The temporary area closures were complemented by the imposition of effort controls in 2004. The Irish sea remains the only EU waters where so-called cod recovery combines area closures with effort control.
	In 1999, there was a fleet of over 40 Northern Ireland trawlers targeting whitefish for most of the year. Today, the number of trawlers targeting whitefish can be measured in single figures. Consequently, white fisheries managers now give lip service to the mixed fishery model. In fact, the traditional mixed fishery in the Irish sea, which served both the stocks and the industry so well for decades, has been managed into a single species fishery.
	Prawns are by far the most important single species to the entire local fishing industry, both at sea and onshore, accounting for more than half the value of all fish and shellfish landed in the Province. Prawns are the bedrock of the local fish processing sector. They account for the vast majority of fishery exports to Europe. That sustains most of the processing sector jobs and has a worth of over £70 million annually to the local economy. Yet despite the fact that fishery managers have cornered the industry into the single species fishery, they are still not happy—they want to go further. How much further can they go?
	I am led to believe that the Commission is minded to impose additional management measures on that industry. There are rumours about further reductions in the number of days prawn boats spend at sea. Additional unproven technical conservation measures in the TAC persist and are counter to the science on that stock, which confirms what fishermen have said for years—if anything, the size of the prawn stock is on the increase.
	Many fishermen hold out for the future; they look for a new dawn. Fishermen, it should be remembered, are just like everyone else—they are businessmen; ordinary people desiring to make a living. Each owns assets worth several thousands, if not millions, of pounds. Does anyone really believe that if fishermen did not think that there was a future in fishing the Irish sea, they would be continuing to invest in the industry, despite the problems? I congratulate those who have maintained that hope and encourage Government to defend them in the negotiations in the Fisheries Council later in December.
	Fishermen want to safeguard fish stocks—after all, they are their future. Our local fisheries organisation is currently managing various projects, utilising European Union and national funding, that are designed to improve the selectivity of fishing gear. In partnership with local fisheries scientists, they are conducting an attempt to identify simple measures that can be used by the local prawn fleet to minimise discards in its prawn trawls. Fishermen are developing a new partnership with local fisheries scientists to improve data, which, in turn, will improve the science and should improve fishery management in the area. Those are commendable exercises. Fishermen are working with scientists and others in the industry and the Department to try to achieve goals.I simply hope that, in the meantime, the forthcoming Fisheries Councils do not scuttle that work by imposing more meaningless measures on the local industry.

Alan Reid: This is fifth annual fishing debate that I have taken part in since being elected to the House and the issues raised are depressingly familiar. They include the usual background of the failure of the cod recovery plan and the knock-on effects for other species. The aims of our fisheries policy should be to create the conditions in which stocks at risk can recover, and to maintain stocks at safe biological limits, so that we avoid the need to take drastic measures to save a particular species. It is also important to ensure the continuing viability of the industry both at sea and on land, and in the many local communities that depend on it.
	There is little doubt that the common fisheries policy as currently structured has failed. It has failed to achieve any of its key objectives or to conserve fish stocks, most obviously of cod. I agree with those Members who say that a full review of the cod recovery plan is required; imposing more of the same measures has little chance of success. We need to move away from the annual round of negotiations and horse-trading in Brussels at this time of year. Ideally, we should move toward a system of regional management committees.
	The current policy has failed mainly because it is far too centralised and run from Brussels. Decisions are taken in a forum that is far too remote from the fishermen and others affected by such decisions. Whereas the Norwegian delegation at the EU-Norway talks allows its fishermen into those talks, other European fishermen are kept outside. Before Sweden joined the EU, Swedish fishermen were able to take part in the talks; once Sweden joined, they were ushered out of the room. We need to involve fishermen much more in these discussions. I also agree that we need to look at the fishing year; the current system leads to a very rushed series of negotiations at this time of year. There seems not to have been time even to involve the existing regional advisory councils fully in that process.
	Withdrawal from the CFP, while it may be tempting, is not a serious option. It was not clear from the comments by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) whether it was still the Conservatives' policy to withdraw from it unilaterally. I thought from his last remark that that was still their policy, but he may be preparing the ground for a U-turn by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron).

Alan Reid: Were they charging for admission?
	As I was saying, withdrawal from the CFP is not an option. Fish swim across national boundaries. They spawn, feed and get caught in different parts of the sea. National boundaries are only artificial lines on the map, drawn halfway between countries, and are not boundaries on which we should base a fisheries policy.
	At European level, we need an overarching policy. However, within that policy, management of fish stocks would be best carried out by regional management committees, which would involve local fishermen, scientists, representatives of Government and other stakeholders. I hope that the new regional advisory councils will develop into regional management committees with real power. I am sure that such committees would manage their local fish stocks far better than the present system.
	I now wish to say a few words about this year's negotiations. As part of my preparation for this debate, I consulted with fishermen in my constituency. The main fishery in the waters off my constituency is prawns. In fact, the prawn fishery is now the most valuable fishery in Scotland. There is universal agreement that prawn stocks are healthy, although it is true that in certain areas, at certain times, there is a more than negligible cod by-catch. However, the cod spawning grounds have been identified and a box has been drawn at the entrance to Clyde, partly in Scottish waters and partly in Northern Ireland waters, in which trawling for prawns is prohibited during the cod spawning season from 14 February until 30 April. As long as the cod spawning box is avoided between those dates, the Clyde Fishermen's Association insists that the cod by-catch when fishing for prawns is negligible, but its fishing effort is restricted. This year the Commission has proposed further cuts in days at sea for nephrops trawlers in the west of Scotland area. The Clyde Fishermen's Association does not see the need for that further restriction because its cod by-catch is negligible as long as the box is avoided at the specific times of the year.
	The views of the CFA on the cod by-catch are backed up by a written answer that I received from the Minister's predecessor, now the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, as long ago as 7 November 2002. It stated:
	"We have already reminded the Commission of our view—substantiated last year by detailed scientific analysis—that curbing nephrops fishing brings minimal benefit to cod."—[Official Report, 7 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 584W.]
	Given that longstanding scientific advice, I do not understand why the Commission still insists that further restrictions on the days at sea for nephrops fishing are required as part of the cod recovery plan.
	This year, there was some good news from the Commission in that it proposes an increase of 39 per cent. in the west of Scotland nephrops TAC. It is very important that the Council agrees to that measure. Last year, the published scientific data showed that the nephrops TAC for the west of Scotland could be increased by 30 per cent. without any risk to cod stocks, but only a much smaller increase was allowed. I am pleased that this year the Commission has taken the scientific advice and proposed a much larger increase.
	The association is also concerned that the European regulations are complex and often change drastically from year to year, which makes it difficult for fishing businesses to plan ahead. The association makes a plea for simplicity and continuity in the regulations. Sometimes, due to their circumstances, individual fishermen suffer greatly from the regulations. The association gave me two examples of such hard-luck cases. I plan to write to the Minister about them in more detail, so I shall only summarise them.
	The owner of a scallop boat wants to convert his vessel so that he can fish for queen scallops, but the scallop-fishing gear on his boat falls outside the regulations. Queen scallops also fall outside European regulations but the gear that he requires to fish for them is caught by European regulations designed to minimise cod by-catch. Because he has no record of prawn fishing in 2002, he cannot to convert his gear, yet the local association tells me that it would be almost impossible to catch a cod with that gear.
	The second case involves a Campbeltown fisherman who bought a vessel from the North sea white fish fleet in 2002 with the intention of converting it to a prawn trawler and using it in the west of Scotland zone. However, just after he bought the trawler the new days at sea regulations were published, whose effect is that the days at sea applying to that vessel are not the days at sea that apply to the west of Scotland nephrops fleet, but the much lower number of days at sea that apply to the North sea white fish fleet. I am not sure of the logic of imposing days at sea restrictions for a species in one zone that were meant to apply to a different species in a different zone. That fisherman was caught out by regulations that did not apply when he bought the vessel, but had retrospective effect to the time before he bought it. That appears unfair to what must be only a small number of fishermen. The fishermen's association told me that as the regulations are European, the Scottish Executive have no flexibility, so I hope that the Minister will investigate those cases.
	Other Members have referred to angling. Angling at sea and in salmon rivers is an important industry and sea management measures can affect it. It is important that the angling industry is allowed to participate in the management of fish stocks.
	In conclusion, I live in hope that future debates will be held against the backdrop of a cod recovery plan that has been seen to work and that the regional advisory councils will have been translated into successful regional management committees, so that this annual, pre-Christmas Brussels horse-trading will be a thing of the past.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman says that fishing will not be an overwhelming priority for Britain, but the fact is that Britain has one of the largest fisheries—if not the largest—in all the European Union. Fishing forms a much more significant part of our economy than it does in other countries of the European Union.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is right of course. A little later I shall discuss the position of suppliers and how supermarkets, due to their power, have been able to exert unnecessary pressure on them.
	The ACS response, due this week, is expected to present a number of conclusions and suggestions for remedies for the imbalance in the market. They include easier confidential complaint mechanisms for businesses; a ban on price flexing; transparency of buying prices; a market share cap; implementation of local competition policies; and initiating an independent proactive retail ombudsman to investigate supermarket dealings with suppliers.
	Under UK law, the function of the competition appeals tribunal—CAT—is to hear and decide appeals and other applications or claims involving competition or economic regulatory issues. The CAT is a specialist judicial body, with cross-disciplinary expertise in law, economics, business and accountancy. It is currently investigating the Association of Convenience Stores v. Office of Fair Trading, case number 1052/6/1/05. At a case management conference on 1 November 2005, and in the light of the OFT's indication that it wanted to withdraw its decision of 3 August, the OFT decision was formally quashed by the tribunal and referred back to the OFT, with a direction to reconsider the matter and make a new decision.
	I turn to the issue of Tesco, which is by far the largest player in the market. Tesco controls more than 30 per cent. of the overall British grocery market, worth £80 billion. One in every eight pounds spent in retail is spent in Tesco. By 2010, the firm's share of the grocery market is predicted to be 45 per cent. Tesco has the largest market share in 67 of the 120 postal districts in the country, while Asda controls 23, Sainsbury's 14 and Morrisons 13. In 14 districts, Tesco has more 40 per cent. of the market. In five towns, it has more than 45 per cent. of the market. That is a rather substantial domination, and we have not seen the end of it.
	It would be wise to examine Tesco's expansion plans in yet more detail, as Tesco has accumulated enough land to develop up to 180 new stores and it plans to expand abroad. Tesco will open 150 stores abroad in the second half of this year. Its overseas operation, from Japan to the Czech Republic, now accounts for 20 per cent. of its turnover.
	Of course it is important to note Tesco's contribution to the development of popular retailing in the United Kingdom in the past decade. Sir Terry Leahy, the chief executive of Tesco—a world-class entrepreneur—has led the retailer's extraordinary success. Sir Terry's management method and clarity of thought has created a modern-day company that leads the UK market and ranks No. 3 in the world.
	Shopping at Tesco—I declare an interest in that I shop at Tesco—and other supermarkets is a wonderful experience. We all love the convenience of having a wide selection of choice under one roof, but there is a line to be drawn between innovation and dominance and between competition and monopoly. Sir Terry's visit to Bangalore in a bid to launch Tesco into the Indian market is worth noting. I admire his enterprise in seeking to sell basmati rice to the Indian population. I suppose that that is the retail equivalent of selling sand to Saudi Arabia.
	It has been suggested that Tesco's expansion abroad is a masterstroke to draw attention from the controversy of the domestic market, so that it can continue to expand. The corporate affairs director of Tesco, Lucy Neville-Rolfe, told MPs last month that her company had grown
	"because we have helped really transform the lives of ordinary people. We have helped to bring prices down; we have helped to improve quality and range; it is great service."
	Not everyone agrees that that is for the good.
	Many manufacturers and distributors have told me that it is complicated and very costly to sell their products on the shelves at Tesco. Rather hefty charges are levied to sell any product that is not its own brand. Other distributors are left with no choice but to pay those fees if they want to sell their products.
	Some have argued that the payment of up-front fees amounts to corporate backhanders. If the distributors do not pay for their goods to be sold, they are not sold. If Tesco does not buy them, the distributors are out of business. Having taken on the goods and paid the listing fee and the commissions that Tesco and others demand, the suppliers then have to pay Tesco to promote their own goods. Given the lack of transparency, it is very difficult to issue formal complaints and suppliers are left absolutely powerless.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is right that the knock-on effect on the farming and dairy industries is profound, which is why it is important that the matter is reviewed.
	Small shops are the very life blood of our community. They provide opportunities, jobs and vital services to local people. Small businesses are finding it difficult to compete on price to offer the variety of goods that citizens want. I quote Mrs. D. Raj, who owns a business in Rushey Mead in Leicester, which is in my constituency. She said:
	"While supermarkets may be creating jobs on the one hand, they cause businesses to lose their livelihoods so that they can make . . . profits. We have to make sure that Leicester offers variety"
	of choice to consumers.
	Consumers are spending on average 25 per cent. more on identical goods in supermarkets than they would on the street market. The street market is a popular option among my constituents because they enjoy the personal service. The street market allows one to get to know people, enjoy that personal relationship and get to know the traders. One can also get products in the packaging and size that one wants, whereas everything in supermarkets is pre-packaged. Pre-packaging limits choice and is wasteful to the environment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) raised the problem of out-of-town shopping centres. I shall cite one example tonight: Tesco and its development at the Hamilton district shopping centre in my constituency. My predecessor as Member of Parliament for Leicester, East, Mr. Peter Bruinvels, and I were united by our concern about the way in which the Hamilton estate was developing. Tesco wanted to build a superstore. As soon as it received planning permission, it dug in its heels and delayed other shops from being established. It wanted to dominate; it did not want a partnership. A review of the planning laws, which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) mentioned, would prevent people and businesses from operating in such a way and disrupting the process for others.